`Bloodbath' in Taxbreakistan

Welcome to Taxbreakistan, where the same guys who profited from the financial crisis have launched a treacherous two-fisted propaganda campaign: attacking the benefits of the increasingly fragile middle class while protecting the gains the wealthiest accumulated from the bubble economy and the bailout.

The propaganda war is couched in terms of paternal sobriety and facing up to financial realities, making tough choices and sharing sacrifices.

According to the propaganda, the only thing preventing the anemic economy from taking off is that the wealthiest Americans who have an ever-increasing share of the nation’s wealth don’t have enough money yet. Aside from the wealthy not having their permanent tax cuts, the main impediment to the economic recovery, according to the propaganda, is continuing to pay unemployment checks to those out of work.

What a load of twaddle.

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and right-wing think tanks are leading the propaganda campaign, one of the leading bomb throwers in this war is former Wyoming senator Alan Simpson, who President Obama appointed to co-chair a commission to examine options to reduce the federal deficit. A fierce advocate of budget cutting, Simpson, a Republican, said recently that he couldn’t wait for the `bloodbath’ that will ensue when Republicans take a meat cleaver to the federal budget in exchange for raising the federal debt limit.

You may recall Simpson’s earlier colorful quote, in which he compared Social Security to a “milk cow with 310 million teats.”

A couple of weeks ago, Simpson threw down the gauntlet in a draft report he wrote with his co-chair Erskine Bowles, a former Democratic Party honcho and hedge fund partner. They proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare and a host of other sweeteners long sought by big business, such as caps on medical malpractice verdicts, that have little to do with deficit reduction but everything to do with a corporate political agenda. The full commission’s report could be released this week.

Meanwhile, Congress jockeys over how to deliver a sloppy wet kiss to the nation’s wealthiest in the guise of continuing their Bush era tax cuts, supposedly as a means to stimulate the economy, even though the tax cuts themselves add $700 billion to the deficit. While President Obama expresses opposition to extending the tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year, the president hasn’t been much of a force in the propaganda war over our economic future.

For their part, the Republicans have dug in their heels on behalf of the nation’s gajillionaires.

The whole propaganda campaign is based on the fraudulent notion that tax cuts for the rich help the economy. That’s not how they started out, before the second George Bush was elected president. He intended them as a way to “starve the beast” – giving back the government surplus that had built up during the Clinton era boom as a way to shrink government. His advisers argued that if the government kept that money it was likely to spend it.

Only later, as the economy began to soften, did Bush add the economic stimulus argument. But the evidence that the tax cuts did anything to boost the economy has always been slim at best. Deficit hawks like Simpson and Bowles are trying to jack up the public’s fear about the deficit in a slow-motion version of the fear-mongering that preceded the no-questions asked bank bailout of 2008, and subsequent highly secretive Federal Reserve money giveaway to the nation’s big banks. We shouldn’t fall for it.

A coalition of progressive-leaning nonprofits have offered an alternative, which favors stimulating the economy first, then cutting the deficit. You can check it out here.

Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 11/30/2010

What the President SHOULD Say

Republicans may have driven the car into the ditch. But voters know the difference between a sales job and reality.

That’s why they didn’t trust President Obama and the Democrats’ pitch that they had gotten the car out of the ditch and gotten it running again.

It didn’t ring true because far too many Americans are still stuck in the ditch.

And all of the presidents’ talk about how much worse off we’d be without his team’s hard work fell on deaf ears.

From the time he took office through the election, the president and his team failed to adequately acknowledge how deep the ditch was. By all accounts, the president is a brilliant man, and he’s hardly the first president to suffer a midterm “shellacking.” And his opponents haven’t exactly been overflowing with creative ideas for how to get the economy going again for those of us who aren’t bankers.

I also realize it’s not just up to the president – we all have a responsibility. So here’s my humble contribution to help the president make a mid-course correction: some suggestions for what the president might say.

My fellow Americans:

You sent me a strong message on November 2. I have to admit it stung. It’s taken a while to sink in, but I get it now.

I haven’t taken the economic pain that many of you are feeling seriously enough. The range of solutions I’ve chosen have been far too narrow and not nearly ambitious or imaginative enough. I’ve paid too much attention to not riling the markets and not enough attention to getting you back to work and keeping you in your houses. For that I owe you an apology. I have also belittled your concerns that our government has fostered a system that favors the wealthy and connected over other Americans. I’m sorry for that too.

I know that words without action ring hollow. So I’m replacing my entire economic team with men and women who are more attuned to the economic crisis that many of you find yourselves in. We’re fortunate that we have such a distinguished group to choose from – Paul Volcker, Robert Reich, Bill Black and Brooksley Born among them.

I have previously attributed the lack of popularity of some of my administration’s policies to my inability to sell them properly. But in retrospect, I see that the problem wasn’t the message. It was my previous unwillingness to fight, and fight hard, for stronger policies, stronger solutions to the country’s economic problems. I should have done so earlier.

But I will do so now.

Make no mistake. These solutions will cost money. Putting people back to work will cost money. But that money is an investment in a future that we can all live with, not just the well-to-do, and that will pay dividends later. I know that my opponents have raised concerns about the federal deficit, and I share some of those concerns. But my top priority for the next two years will be putting Americans back to work and making sure that we have a recovery that works for everybody. If my opponents want to have a debate on the deficit, I welcome that. If they want to have a debate on whether the government can truly help people or whether the government itself is the problem, then I welcome that too. Let’s have it on television.

But mostly I welcome my opponents’ ideas about how to put Americans back to work. Because the American people don’t just want an endless debate. You want action.

We’ll have a debate and then we’ll get to it. I know that you’re impatient. You also don’t want excuses. You won’t get any from me. What you will get is a plan to reduce unemployment, stabilize housing and reduce the widespread economic misery. I promise you that will be my number one priority.

Thank you for the great trust you have placed in me.

Can I guarantee success if my opponents decide to stand in the way rather than cooperate? Probably not. But I promise you that for the next two years all of my energy, intellect and passion will be harnessed to this effort, whatever the obstacles or political costs.

Martin Column / Outrage / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 11/05/2010

BIPARTISANSHIP FOR BIG BANKS

With 2 weeks to go to the midterm elections, President Obama and the Republicans have found an issue they can agree on: if they just do nothing, the foreclosure scandal will go away.

They’re betting that the use of robo-signers to process foreclosure documents without actually reading them will just amount to a pile of sloppy paperwork.

They’re betting that blaming borrowers will trump public outrage over banks holding themselves above the rule of law that states they have to prove that they own a mortgage note before they can foreclose.

You can understand the Republicans’ position; they argue that the government has no responsibility and is only capable of making any problem worse.

President Obama’s approach can’t be much of a surprise either, after leaving his financial policy in the hands of Wall Street apologists, fighting the most robust financial reform, providing a failed foreclosure relief program and not raising a finger to help when banks opposed his own proposal and not using his bully pulpit to push it. The president, despite his occasional bursts of rhetoric, has never assumed the role of tough regulator and reformer he promised on the campaign trail, preferring to act as the big bank’s collaborator-in-chief.

The president’s name may not be on the ballot November 2. But many of the Democrats who are facing the voters advocate a more robust response: a foreclosure moratorium while the very real legal issues are sorted out.

The Obama administration has taken to sending signals to the voters, hoping that might allay their worries. The feds announced the formation of that entity designed to show concern while guaranteeing that no action will be taken for the foreseeable future: a task force.

A number of banks had started their own voluntary moratoriums on some foreclosures. But two of those banks, Ally and Bank of America, have already canceled them. Meanwhile all 50 state attorney generals have announced their own investigations into the mess.

Despite the efforts of bank apologists to minimize it, the foreclosure debacle continues to shape up as a series of nasty legal battles, with a dramatic, unsettling impact on the housing market.

Opponents of a foreclosure moratorium portray it as a way of giving homes to people who haven’t been making their mortgage payments. But that’s a phony argument. A moratorium will not end up causing anybody who hasn’t been paying their mortgage to own a house they didn’t pay for.

As far as borrowers living in their houses for free, let’s be clear: that’s happening now, and it’s not the fault of any moratorium. It’s happening as a result of the banks’ own chaotic approach to foreclosure, often not wanting to take possession of property that has lost its value or not hiring enough staff to manage the properties properly.

This is the terrible irony about the banks’ fear-mongering. While they’re always predicting awful consequences to any action that limits their own power, the banks create the consequences all by themselves, or with the help of their willing collaborators.

Bank of America (BoA) / Foreclosures / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 10/20/2010

SEC TO Mozilo: Fraud Pays

The SEC is at it again. They’re bragging that the agency nailed the largest penalty of its kind in history against the king of the subprime lenders for defrauding his shareholders.

And no doubt, $65 million dollars sounds like a lot of money.

But when you remember how much money Angelo Mozilo raked in during his reign, and when you break down the details of the SEC fine, it doesn’t add up.

It certainly doesn’t add up to much in the way of punishing Mozilo.

As usual when the SEC settles the civil charges it files, Mozilo and his two former colleagues admitted no wrongdoing as part of their settlement.

The SEC accused Mozilo, the butcher’s son who rose to be the president of Countrywide, of keeping from shareholders his fears that his collection of subprime loans was trash while reassuring his stockholders that everything was hunky-dory.

Federal prosecutors are still poking around in the ashes of Countrywide, and maybe they will come up with something.

But so far here’s the scorecard on Mozilo: the SEC said he received $141.7 million as a result of fraud and insider trading. They fined him $22.5 million.

As the Center for Public Integrity points out, that means he has give back just 16 cents of every ill-gotten dollar he got.

In addition, the SEC touts the $45 million that Mozilo will have to turn over to Bank of America shareholders, though that money won’t come out of Mozilo’s very deep pockets. That will come from his insurer and the company that bought Countrywide, Bank of America.

The fines seem even slighter when you contemplate what Mozilo was paid in his days as master of the universe.

In his time as executive chairman of Countrywide between 1999 and 2008, he was paid a total of $410 million in salary, bonuses and stock options.

In 2007, when the company’s stock tanked, dropping from $40 to under $10, Mozilo had an off-year too. He was only paid $10.8 million.

In perspective, this doesn’t seem like much for the SEC to brag about. Sixteen cents on the dollar certainly isn’t going to strike fear into the heart of any business titan.

Martin Column / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 10/19/2010

Around the Web: Outsourcing Foreclosure `Catastrophe'

You wouldn’t think the leader of the free world would be so willing to outsource a massive foreclosure scandal to state attorneys general, judges, regulators and the big banks that created the mess in the first place.

But that’s exactly what President Obama has done, standing aside while 50 state attorneys general launch investigations, while banks implement their own voluntary moratoriums, announcing they have halted some, but not all, foreclosure proceedings.

A growing number of politicians, civil rights and consumer groups and labor unions have called for a nationwide moratorium amid allegations that banks violated foreclosure laws by using sloppy, false or fraudulent paperwork to kick people out of their homes.

But President Obama doesn’t like the idea of a foreclosure moratorium, which he fears could put the kibosh on his fragile recovery.

Where is the administration’s effort at finding some other creative solution to the mess the big banks have created across the country? What we find instead are regulators that have been ignoring clear warning signs about the banks’ troubled foreclosure crisis.

The federal response so far has been limp at best: a Justice Department inquiry (short of an investigation) and a call by a federal regulator for the banks to voluntarily verify that their foreclosure paperwork is in order.

Recent press reports call into question whether the banks have even implemented the foreclosure moratoriums they promised. Meanwhile more banks, this time Wells-Fargo, acknowledge they have also violated the laws governing foreclosure by submitting unverified documents to take people’s homes. Isn’t there an election coming up where the Democrats are fighting to maintain control of Congress, with their entire agenda at stake? Isn’t there already one party that has expertly cornered the whole do-nothing stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach to unemployment and foreclosure? Doesn’t the president know how awful it looks to most people to have the bailed-out banks getting away with yet more hanky-panky?

You would think the president would want to appear more engaged in this issue that’s so close to the heart of our on-going economic troubles.

His treasury secretary fears “unintended consequences". Apparently the administration would prefer the banks continue to foreclose on people using phony documents. While Wall Street predicts a catastrophe if a moratorium is implemented. If the big bankers want to know who created a catastrophe that will cost them billions, they only need to look in the mirror.

Bank of America (BoA) / Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 10/15/2010

The Republican Who Tackled Foreclosures

President Obama isn’t the first politician to have to stare a massive foreclosure crisis in the face.

The last time foreclosures loomed so large in the economy and the national consciousness was during the Great Depression, when farmers and homeowners were losing their land in massive numbers.

Several states passed laws including moratoriums on foreclosure. Not because the banks couldn’t prove they owned the farms, or because they screwed up the paperwork. The moratoriums were implemented in recognition that the country was in an economic emergency and that having so many people lose their homes was bad for the country.

Minnesota passed such a law in 1933. After a judge allowed a couple to postpone foreclosure, the building and loan association that owned the mortgagee challenged the law. The firm appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that law was a violation of the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. But in its  landmark ruling in Home Building v. Blaisdell, the high court upheld the law. By a 5 to 4 vote the court ruled that the contracts clause wasn’t absolute and it didn’t outweigh the rights of the states to protect the vital interests of its citizens. In dissent, Associate Justice George Sutherland warned that the ruling would be just the beginning of further erosion of the contracts clause.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, an appointee of President Herbert Hoover, wrote the majority opinion. Hughes wasn’t some ivory-tower judge but a seasoned and fascinating Republican politician who had served as two-term governor of New York, with a record for establishing a public service commission, as well as pushing through labor law and insurance reform. He ran unsuccessfully for president against Woodrow Wilson before serving his first stint on the Supreme Court before running for president. After a stretch as secretary of state under President Calvin Coolidge, he was in and out of private life before President Hoover appointed him chief justice in 1930.

Though liberals gave him a hard time in his confirmation hearing, he often provided a swing vote in favor of the New Deal on a highly contentious court. But Hughes also repeatedly tangled with Roosevelt, voting against the constitutionality of the National Recovery Administration and opposing FDR’s court-packing scheme.

What do we get from this excursion into history? There’s some comfort in knowing the country has grappled with these tough times and issues before and survived. But it’s hard to encounter a figure like Hughes and not wish that some of his courage and unpredictability could rub off on our current crop of leaders, who seem so timid and tame by comparison, and who seem to have forgotten that protecting the vital interests of citizens isn’t just a matter of bailing out banks and tax cuts for the rich and hoping some of the booty will trickle down to the rest of us.

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 10/13/2010

Elizabeth Warren's Inside Move

So President Obama did not appoint bailout critic and middle-class champion Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

He did appoint her to an important-sounding post as a White House adviser with responsibility to set up the agency, which after all was her idea in the first place.

Is the president actually marginalizing her with the window dressing of a fancy title? Or will she have a meaningful role in setting up the agency and shaping policy?

The punditocracy has gone into overdrive analyzing the president’s handling of Warren.

The positive spin is that it’s a savvy political move on Obama’s part to get her to work right away creating the agency and avoid a Republican filibuster, and that the president will finally be hearing from an insider not under Wall Street’s spell.

The more skeptical interpretation sees it as the latest example of the president’s failure to push back against Wall Street on issues that Wall Street cares about. As he has in the past, rather than picking a principled fight with Wall Street (and Republicans) Obama found a way around it.

The third spin, from Barney Frank, is that Warren actually didn’t  want a permanent appointment now, keeping her options open to either exit the administration or accept the job later.

Writing on WheresOurMoney.org earlier, Harvey Rosenfield, eloquently described why Warren is the best person to lead the new agency.

Warren has been a long-time critic of predatory lending practices and the American way of debt. In her role as congressional monitor of the federal bank bailout she’s been a fearless straight shooter and a down-to-earth demystifier of the complexities and foibles of high finance.

But Obama’s handling of her appointment reinforces the impression that he’s weak in the face of Wall Street’s power. Why in the world, with a high-stakes election less than 2 months away, would the president want to avoid a fight with Wall Street and Republicans on behalf of the undisputed champion of the middle-class and consumers? If the president does intend to appoint Warren to head the agency later, does he seriously think it will be easier later?

Unlike most of the president’s other top economic advisers, Warren has never been cozy with Wall Street. But it’s simply not realistic to expect the president is about to get more aggressive in reining in the big banks with Warren on the inside.

The president has shown that he is capable of ignoring perfectly good advice from well-respected advisers with impressive job titles within his administration. Remember Paul Volcker? The former Fed adviser has been a lonely voice within the Obama administration warning about the continuing dangers of the too big to fail banks and too much risky business in the financial system. But the president used Volcker as little more than a populist prop, preferring the more conciliatory approach championed by his other top economic adviser, Larry Summers, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed president Ben Bernanke. These three effectively fought off the tougher aspects of financial regulation at the same they time touted themselves as real reformers. While the president made clear Warren will work directly for him, will she be able to match Summers, Geithner and Bernanke, all seasoned bureaucratic infighters? She’s done little to endear herself to them and has publicly tangled with Geithner.

There’s no question that Warren, a Harvard bankruptcy law professor, has already played an extraordinary and important role in helping understand the financial collapse and its fallout. She’s never been anything but forthright, no-nonsense, principled, unafraid to speak truth to financial power and to demand accountability. She will need all those qualities as well as thick skin and nerves of steel for her new job. The stakes are high. I wish her well.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 09/17/2010

Around the Web: Volcker Rules - Not!

Until the morning of January 21, 82-year-old former Federal Reserve president Paul Volcker had been a lonely and largely ignored figure among President Obama’s economic advisers.

Volcker seemed to be the only one of Obama’s advisers not under the spell of the “too big to fail banks” and their highly touted innovations.

Volcker was especially vocal about protecting the public from the financial world’s riskier innovations. As he told a financial conference last year, “Riskier financial activities should be limited to hedge funds to whom society could say: ‘If you fail, fail. I'm not going to help you. Your stock is gone, creditors are at risk, but no one else is affected.’ ”

It was Volcker who had said that the only financial innovation to benefit consumers in the last 20 years was the ATM card.

But he wasn’t getting much traction with the president and his advisers.

Then the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

In a lurch back toward the populism he had embraced during his campaign, President Obama hastily reached out for Volcker.

During a press conference, the president endorsed something he called the Volcker rule as an essential plank of his financial reform plan. That rule would restrict banks from risky proprietary trades with their own (borrowed) money.

Here’s what the president said:

“Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers.  If financial firms want to trade for profit, that's something they're free to do.  Indeed, doing so –- responsibly –- is a good thing for the markets and the economy.  But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.”

For more on proprietary trading and the Volcker rule, read this from Rortybomb’s Mike Konczal and the NYT. For more about why the Volcker rule was a good idea, see this from WSJ’s Dealbreaker.

Obama mentioned the Volcker Rule a couple more times, as did the man who was marshaling financial reform through the House, Rep. Barney Frank.

But neither the president nor anybody else in the Democratic leadership ever mounted a public campaign to make it an essential part of reform. In fact, within a month, the president was already backing off his support of the Volcker rule.

And now, like many other parts of the reform that would have protected consumers and inconvenienced banks, it has been largely gutted.

Bloomberg reports “lobbying by banks and congressmen sympathetic to Wall Street’s views, as well as some administration members in the banks’ defense, trampled the views of Volcker and others who favored a stronger proposal.”

The weaker provisions won’t even go into effect for as many as 12 years.

It would have been one thing for Obama and the Democrats to go down swinging on the Volcker Rule. But they didn’t even put up much of a fight.

If you’re as disappointed as I am with the president’s lack of leadership on this, after he made such a big deal about it, why not let him know?

Around the Web / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 06/30/2010

Around the Web: Landmark or Pit Stop?

I understand why people feel the need to tout the historical significance of the financial reform package that passed the conference committee. The president needs it politically and those who support him want to give him credit for getting anything at all in the face of the onslaught of bank lobbyists. Lots of folks worked very hard against tremendous odds to get something passed.

But I think a more sober analysis shows that what’s been achieved is pretty modest. It hands over many crucial details to the same regulators who oversaw our financial debacle.

Summing up, Bloomberg reports: “Legislation to overhaul financial regulation will help curb risk-taking and boost capital buffers. What it won’t do is fundamentally reshape Wall Street’s biggest banks or prevent another crisis, analysts said.”

Zach Carter characterizes it as a good first step. The Roosevelt Institute’s Robert Johnson writes: “This first round was not the whole fight. It was the wake-up call and the beginning of the fight. Rest up and get ready. There is so much more to do.”

The question is when we’ll get the chance to take the additional steps that are needed. The public is skeptical that the new rules will prevent another crisis, according to this AP poll. The Big Picture’s Barry Ritholtz grades the various aspects of the reform effort. Overall grade? C-. Top marks go to the new minimum mortgage underwriting standards. But legislators get failing grades for leaving four critical issues on the table: “to big to fail banks,” bank leverage, credit rating agencies and corporate pay.

Ritholtz saves some of his harshest evaluation for the proposal to house the new consumer protection agency inside the Federal Reserve, which he finds “beyond idiotic.”

Around the Web / Executive Pay / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 06/25/2010

The Marx Brothers' Guide to Financial Reform

“Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” asks brother Chico in the madcap classic “Duck Soup.”

It’s the middle of the night in the imaginary European nation of Freedonia. Chico has disguised himself in a scheme to convince a skeptical wealthy widow, the country’s major creditor, that he’s actually the country’s newly elected president (Groucho) to get her to hand over Freedonia’s top secret war plans.

The trouble is Chico’s Italian accent.

And Harpo. He’s disguised himself as Groucho too. And of course there’s Groucho. Three Grouchos. Who’s the real one?

Chico’s line reminds me of the not so funny antics of the Obama administration and our political leadership in their various efforts to convince us that financial system should be left intact and that reform should just be left up to the same regulators who colluded in creating the economic crisis and protecting big bankers’ interests.

That’s essentially what our leaders have proposed, wrapping themselves in the disguise of real reformers.

We may have been blinded for a while by the riches the bankers were offering us, but we can see clearly now what they were: a gaudy mirage.

If we didn’t get it when the economy crashed, we get it now, after we toted up the bill from the unsavory wreckage of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, as well as the expense from the equally unappealing survival of Goldman-Sachs.

It’s plain to see that if any bank presidents lost their jobs they were handsomely compensated. None have been forced to face foreclosure or have had their unemployment or health insurance cut off.

The rest of us have a choice: believe our leaders or own eyes.

We understand what happened: the bankers got too big and powerful, got rid of all the rules, got greedy and brought the economy down – except for the part that kept churning out gargantuan bonuses to the financial titans.

We understand what we need to do, too: break up the big banks, curtail their power and wall off their gambling games from the economy the rest of us have to live in.

But the leadership that’s trying to control the debate seems hopelessly out of step with the country.

Not all the politicians are as clueless as the leaders. In fact, more than a dozen senators have signed on to what not long ago would have been considered a radical proposal – to audit the Federal Reserve. It already passed through the House by a wide margin.

This terrifies the administration, which doesn’t want any more details leaking out about the favors the Fed has been granting the big banks at public expense.

So the president’s chief of staff, former investment banker Rahm Emanuel, is working the phones. If the administration favored real reform, they’d be stiffening the politicians’ resolve against the massive bank lobbying intended to gut strong regulation. But instead, the president has sent Emanuel out to do the regulators’ bidding, to dissuade senators from voting for a Fed audit.

In the Senate, a handful of senators have proposed a stronger dose of reform than the administration and Democratic leadership have prescribed. But the Senate’s Democratic leaders are squeamish about even allowing their colleagues to debate these more robust proposals.

Meanwhile, the Republican leadership seems to be getting inspiration from the same Marx Brothers’ movie they’ve been glued to since Obama got elected –  “Horse Feathers.” Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell may not have any ideas of their own but they’ve managed to perfectly capture the spirit of the lead character, Samuel Quincy Wagstaffe (played by Groucho) in his opening number, “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It.”

The Marx Brothers’ wit and wisdom never go out of style but they’re especially timely now. They began their film careers satirizing the hysteria surrounding a real estate bubble: the Florida land boom in “Cocoanuts” in 1929. “You can get any kind of a house you want,” Groucho assures prospective buyers as he auctions off some land of dubious value. “You can even get stucco.  Oh, how you can get stuck-o.”

While he poked fun at speculative investing, in real life Groucho was also a victim. He lost his savings in the 1929 crash. “Some of the people I know lost millions,” he quipped bitterly in his autobiography. “I was luckier. All I lost was two hundred and forty thousand dollars. I would have lost more, but that was all the money I had.”

Federal Reserve / Goldman-Sachs / Lehman / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 05/05/2010